|
|
|
|
|
|
We prepared the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements of ENSCO International Incorporated and subsidiaries (the "Company" or "Ensco") in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America ("GAAP"), pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") included in the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. The financial information included in this report is unaudited but, in our opinion, includes all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring adjustments) that are necessary for a fair presentation of our financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the interim periods presented. The December 31, 2008 condensed consolidated balance sheet data were derived from our 2008 audited consolidated financial statements but do not include all disclosures required by GAAP. Certain previously reported amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation. The preparation of our condensed consolidated financial statements requires management to make certain estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the related revenues and expenses and disclosures of gain and loss contingencies as of the date of the financial statements. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
The financial data for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 included herein have been subjected to a limited review by KPMG LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm. The accompanying independent registered public accounting firm's review report is not a report within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and the independent registered public accounting firm's liability under Section 11 does not extend to it.
Results of operations for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations that will be realized for the year ending December 31, 2009. It is recommended that these condensed consolidated financial statements be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto for the year ended December 31, 2008 included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 26, 2009.
|
On January 1, 2009, we adopted SFAS No. 160, "Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements" ("SFAS 160"). This standard amends Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51, "Consolidated Financial Statements", to establish accounting and reporting standards for the noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a subsidiary. SFAS 160 clarifies that a noncontrolling interest should be reported as equity in the consolidated financial statements and requires net income attributable to both the parent and the noncontrolling interest to be disclosed separately on the face of the consolidated statement of income. The presentation and disclosure requirements of SFAS 160 require retrospective application to all prior periods presented.
In accordance with SFAS 160, we classified noncontrolling interests as equity on our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 and presented net income attributable to noncontrolling interests separately on our condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008. Prior year amounts were previously included in other liabilities and contract drilling expense on our consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of income, respectively. Local third parties hold a noncontrolling ownership interest in three of our international subsidiaries. No changes in the ownership interests of these subsidiaries occurred during the six-month period ended June 30, 2009.
|
|
Three Months Ended |
Six Months Ended |
|||||||
|
June 30, |
June 30, |
|||||||
|
2009 |
2008 |
2009 |
2008 |
|||||
|
|||||||||
Income from continuing operations |
|
$226.3 |
|
$288.1 |
|
$452.1 |
|
$556.9 |
|
Income from continuing operations attributable to
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
(1.2 |
) |
(2.5) |
|
(2.9 |
) |
|
|||||||||
Income from continuing operations attributable to Ensco |
|
$225.2 |
|
$286.9 |
|
$449.6 |
|
$554.0 |
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net, for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 was attributable to Ensco.
|
On January 1, 2009, we adopted SFAS No. 161, "Disclosures about Derivative and Hedging Activities" ("SFAS 161"). This standard amends SFAS No. 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities" ("SFAS 133"), to change the disclosure requirements for derivative instruments and hedging activities. SFAS 161 requires enhanced disclosures about (a) how and why an entity uses derivative instruments, (b) how derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under SFAS 133 and its related interpretations and (c) how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entity's financial position, operating results and cash flows.
We use derivative financial instruments ("derivatives") to reduce our exposure to various market risks, primarily foreign currency risk. We maintain a foreign currency risk management strategy that utilizes derivatives to reduce our exposure to unanticipated fluctuations in earnings and cash flows caused by changes in foreign currency exchange rates. Although no interest rate related derivatives were outstanding as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, we occasionally employ an interest rate risk management strategy that utilizes derivatives to minimize or eliminate unanticipated fluctuations in earnings and cash flows arising from changes in, and volatility of, interest rates. We minimize our credit risk relating to our derivative counterparties by transacting with multiple, high-quality financial institutions, thereby limiting exposure to individual counterparties, and by monitoring the financial condition of our counterparties. We do not enter into derivatives for trading or other speculative purposes.
All derivatives were recorded on our condensed consolidated balance sheets at fair value. Accounting for the gains and losses resulting from changes in the fair value of derivatives depends on the use of the derivative and whether it qualifies for hedge accounting in accordance with SFAS 133. As of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, our condensed consolidated balance sheets included net foreign currency derivative assets of $1.6 million and net foreign currency derivative liabilities of $20.3 million, respectively. See "Note 7 - Fair Value Measurements" for additional information on the fair value measurement of our derivatives.
Derivatives recorded at fair value in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 consisted of the following (in millions):
|
Derivative Assets |
Derivative Liabilities |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
December 31, |
|
June 30, |
|
December 31, |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Foreign currency forward contracts - current(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$8.2 |
|
|
|
$ .3 |
|
|
|
$6.7 |
|
|
|
$25.8 |
|
Foreign currency forward contracts - non-current(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
5.1 |
|
|
|
1.3 |
|
|
|
.0 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Total derivatives designated as hedging instruments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.3 |
|
|
|
5.4 |
|
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
25.8 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Foreign currency forward contracts - current(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.3 |
|
|
|
.1 |
|
|
|
.0 |
|
|
|
.0 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Total derivatives not designated as hedging instruments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.3 |
|
|
|
.1 |
|
|
|
.0 |
|
|
|
.0 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Total derivatives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$9.6 |
|
|
|
$5.5 |
|
|
|
$8.0 |
|
|
|
$25.8 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
(1) |
|
Derivative assets and liabilities which have maturity dates equal to or less than twelve months from the respective balance sheet dates were included in other current assets and accrued liabilities and other, respectively, on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. |
(2) |
|
Derivative assets and liabilities which have maturity dates greater than twelve months from the respective balance sheet dates were included in other assets, net, and other liabilities, respectively, on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. |
We utilize derivatives to hedge forecasted foreign currency denominated transactions ("cash flow hedges"), primarily to reduce our exposure to foreign currency risk associated with the portion of our remaining ENSCO 8500 Series® construction obligations denominated in Singapore dollars and contract drilling expenses denominated in various other currencies. As of June 30, 2009, we had cash flow hedges outstanding to exchange an aggregate $419.3 million for foreign currencies, including $270.2 million for Singapore dollars, $74.8 million for British pounds, $37.9 million for Australian dollars and $36.4 million for various other foreign currencies.
Gains and losses on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges in accordance with SFAS 133 included in our condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 were as follows (in millions):
Three Months Ended June 30, 2009 and 2008
Derivatives Designated
|
Gain Recognized in
|
|
Gain or (Loss)
|
|
Gain or (Loss)
|
||||||||||||
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Foreign currency forward contracts(2) |
|
$14.2 |
|
$2.2 |
|
|
|
$(5.0) |
|
$2.6 |
|
|
|
$4.1 |
|
$(.3) |
|
Interest rate swap contracts(3) |
|
-- |
|
-- |
|
|
|
(.1) |
|
(.2) |
|
|
|
-- |
|
-- |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Total |
|
$14.2 |
|
$2.2 |
|
|
|
$(5.1) |
|
$2.4 |
|
|
|
$4.1 |
|
$(.3) |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 |
Derivatives Designated
|
Gain or (Loss)
|
|
Gain or (Loss)
|
|
Gain or (Loss)
|
||||||||||||
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Foreign currency forward contracts(2) |
|
$(1.2) |
|
$5.4 |
|
|
|
$(14.8) |
|
$4.6 |
|
|
|
$(2.4) |
|
$.1 |
|
Interest rate swap contracts(3) |
|
-- |
|
-- |
|
|
|
(.3) |
|
(.4) |
|
|
|
-- |
|
-- |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Total |
|
$(1.2) |
|
$5.4 |
|
|
|
$(15.1) |
|
$4.2 |
|
|
|
$(2.4) |
|
$ .1 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
(1) |
|
Gains and losses recognized in income for ineffectiveness and amounts excluded from effectiveness testing were included in other income, net, in our condensed consolidated statements of income. |
(2) |
|
Gains and losses on derivatives reclassified from AOCI into income (effective portion) were included in contract drilling expense in our condensed consolidated statements of income. |
(3) |
|
Losses on derivatives reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income ("AOCI") into income (effective portion) were included in other income, net, in our condensed consolidated statements of income. |
We have net assets and liabilities denominated in numerous foreign currencies and use various methods to manage our exposure to foreign currency risk. We predominantly structure our drilling contracts in U.S. dollars, which significantly reduces the portion of our cash flows and assets denominated in foreign currencies. We occasionally enter into derivatives that hedge the fair value of recognized foreign currency denominated assets or liabilities but do not designate such derivatives as hedging instruments, or the derivatives otherwise do not qualify for hedge accounting under SFAS 133. In these situations, a natural hedging relationship generally exists whereby changes in the fair value of the derivatives offset changes in the fair value of the underlying hedged items. As of June 30, 2009, we had derivatives not designated as hedging instruments outstanding to exchange an aggregate $43.5 million for foreign currencies, including $13.6 million for Danish kroner, $11.8 million for Australian dollars, $8.8 million for British pounds and $9.3 million for various other currencies.
Net gains of $3.2 million and $1.5 million associated with our derivatives not designated as hedging instruments under SFAS 133 were included in other income, net, in our condensed consolidated statements of income for the quarters ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Net gains of $2.2 million and $4.7 million associated with our derivatives not designated as hedging instruments under SFAS 133 were included in other income, net, in our condensed consolidated statements of income for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
If we were to incur a hypothetical 10% adverse change in foreign currency exchange rates, net unrealized losses associated with our foreign currency denominated assets and liabilities and related derivatives as of June 30, 2009 would approximate $39.6 million, including $26.8 million related to our Singapore dollar exposures. All of our outstanding derivatives mature during the next three years.
As of June 30, 2009, the estimated amount of net unrealized gains associated with derivatives, net of tax, that will be reclassified to earnings during the next twelve months was as follows (in millions):
Net unrealized gains to be reclassified to contract drilling expense |
|
|
|
$ .9 |
|
Net unrealized losses to be reclassified to other income, net |
|
|
|
(.6 |
) |
|
|||||
Net unrealized gains to be reclassified to earnings |
|
|
|
$ .3 |
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 was comprised of net unrealized losses on derivative instruments, net of tax. The components of comprehensive income, net of tax, for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 were as follows (in millions):
|
Three Months Ended |
Six Months Ended |
|||||||
|
June 30, |
June 30, |
|||||||
|
2009 |
2008 |
2009 |
2008 |
|||||
|
|||||||||
Net income |
|
$201.4 |
|
$297.9 |
|
$423.5 |
|
$571.6 |
|
Other comprehensive income: |
|
||||||||
Net change in fair value of derivatives |
|
14.2 |
|
2.2 |
|
(1.2) |
|
5.4 |
|
Reclassification of unrealized gains and losses on |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
derivatives from other comprehensive loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(income) into net income |
|
5.1 |
|
(2.4 |
) |
15.1 |
|
(4.2 |
) |
|
|||||||||
Net other comprehensive income (loss) |
|
19.3 |
|
(.2 |
) |
13.9 |
|
1.2 |
|
|
|||||||||
Comprehensive income |
|
220.7 |
|
297.7 |
|
437.4 |
|
572.8 |
|
Comprehensive income attributable to noncontrolling
|
|
(1.1 |
) |
(1.2 |
) |
(2.5) |
|
(2.9 |
) |
|
|||||||||
Comprehensive income attributable to Ensco |
|
$219.6 |
|
$296.5 |
|
$434.9 |
|
$569.9 |
|
|
|
|
Assets Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring
Basis |
|
Quoted Prices in |
Significant |
|
|
||||||||||
|
Active Markets |
Other |
Significant |
|
||||||||||
|
for |
Observable |
Unobservable |
|
||||||||||
|
Identical Assets |
Inputs |
Inputs |
|
||||||||||
|
(Level 1) |
(Level 2) |
(Level 3) |
Total |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
As of June 30, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
Auction rate securities |
|
|
|
$ -- |
|
|
$ -- |
|
|
$61.6 |
|
|
$61.6 |
|
Derivative instruments, net |
|
|
|
-- |
|
|
1.6 |
|
|
-- |
|
|
1.6 |
|
|
||||||||||||||
Total financial assets |
|
|
|
$ -- |
|
|
$ 1.6 |
|
|
$61.6 |
|
|
$63.2 |
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
As of December 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
Auction rate securities |
|
|
|
$ -- |
|
|
$ -- |
|
|
$64.2 |
|
|
$64.2 |
|
|
||||||||||||||
Total financial assets |
|
|
|
$ -- |
|
|
$ -- |
|
|
$64.2 |
|
|
$64.2 |
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Derivative instruments, net |
|
|
|
$ -- |
|
|
$20.3 |
|
|
$ -- |
|
|
$20.3 |
|
|
||||||||||||||
Total financial liabilities |
|
|
|
$ -- |
|
|
$20.3 |
|
|
$ -- |
|
|
$20.3 |
|
|
Our derivative instruments were measured at fair value on a recurring basis using Level 2 inputs as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008. See "Note 4 - Derivative Financial Instruments" for additional information on our derivatives, including a description of our foreign currency hedging activities and related methodologies used to manage foreign currency risk. The fair value measurement of our derivatives was based on market prices that are generally observable for similar assets or liabilities at commonly quoted intervals. |
|
As of June
30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, we held long-term debt
instruments with variable interest rates that
periodically reset through an auction process ("auction
rate securities") totaling $69.7 million and $72.3
million (par value), respectively. Auction rate
securities were classified as long-term investments on
our condensed consolidated balance sheets. Our auction
rate securities were originally acquired in January
2008 and have maturity dates ranging from 2025 to 2047.
Our auction rate securities were measured at fair value
on a recurring basis using significant Level 3 inputs
as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008. The
following table summarizes our fair value measurements
using significant Level 3 inputs, and changes therein,
for the three-month and six-month periods ended June
30, 2009 and 2008 (in millions):
|
|
Three Months Ended |
Six Months Ended |
|||||||
|
June 30, |
June 30, |
|||||||
|
2009 |
2008 |
2009 |
2008 |
|||||
|
|||||||||
Beginning Balance |
|
$61.9 |
|
$79.9 |
|
$64.2 |
|
$ -- |
|
(Settlements) purchases |
|
(.3 |
) |
(9.7) |
|
(2.6) |
|
73.3 |
|
Unrealized losses* |
|
-- |
|
(.2) |
|
-- |
|
(3.3) |
|
Realized losses |
|
-- |
|
-- |
|
-- |
|
-- |
|
Transfers in and/or out of Level 3 |
|
-- |
|
-- |
|
-- |
|
-- |
|
|
|||||||||
Ending balance |
|
$61.6 |
|
$70.0 |
|
$61.6 |
|
$70.0 |
|
|
* |
Unrealized losses were included in other income, net, in our condensed consolidated statements of income. |
|
We determined that use of a valuation model was the best available technique for measuring the fair value of our auction rate securities. We used an income approach valuation model to estimate the price that would be received in exchange for our auction rate securities in an orderly transaction between market participants ("exit price") as of June 30, 2009. The exit price was derived as the weighted-average present value of expected cash flows over various periods of illiquidity, using a risk-adjusted discount rate that was based on the credit risk and liquidity risk of our auction rate securities. While our valuation model was based on both Level 2 (credit quality and interest rates) and Level 3 inputs, we determined that Level 3 inputs were most significant to the overall fair value measurement, particularly the estimates of risk-adjusted discount rates and ranges of expected periods of illiquidity. We believe that we have the ability to maintain our investment in these securities until they are redeemed, repurchased or sold in a market that facilitates orderly transactions. Other Financial Instruments During the second quarter of 2009, we adopted FASB Staff Position No. FAS 107-1 and APB 28-1, "Interim Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments". This staff position amends SFAS No. 107, "Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments", to require disclosures about the fair value of financial instruments of publicly-traded companies for interim reporting periods as well as in annual financial statements. This staff position also amends APB Opinion No. 28, "Interim Financial Reporting", to require the aforementioned disclosures in summarized financial information at interim reporting periods.
The
carrying values and estimated fair values of our debt
instruments as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008
were as follows (in millions):
|
|
June 30, |
December 31, |
|||||||
|
2009 |
2008 |
|||||||
|
|
Estimated |
|
Estimated |
|||||
|
Carrying |
Fair |
Carrying |
Fair |
|||||
|
Value |
Value |
Value |
Value |
|||||
|
|
|
|
||||||
4.65% Bonds, including current maturities |
|
$ 51.8 |
|
$ 56.7 |
|
$ 54.0 |
|
$ 62.1 |
|
6.36% Bonds, including current maturities |
|
82.3 |
|
94.0 |
|
88.7 |
|
103.9 |
|
7.20% Debentures |
|
148.8 |
|
144.9 |
|
148.8 |
|
140.3 |
|
|
|
ENSCO 69
From May 2007 to June 2009, ENSCO 69 was contracted to Petrosucre, a subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., the national oil company of Venezuela ("PDVSA"). PDVSA subsidiaries reportedly lack funds and, since late 2008, generally have not been paying their contractors and service providers. In January 2009, we suspended drilling operations on ENSCO 69 after Petrosucre failed to satisfy its contractual obligations and meet commitments relative to the payment of past due invoices. Petrosucre then took over complete control of ENSCO 69 drilling operations utilizing Petrosucre employees and a portion of the Venezuelan rig crews we had utilized. When Petrosucre initially advised us that it temporarily was taking over operations on the rig, we placed our supervisory rig personnel on ENSCO 69 to observe Petrosucre's operations.
On April 30, 2009, we submitted a notice of termination to Petrosucre for non-payment of past due invoices. The terms of the ENSCO 69 drilling contract provided for termination of the contract upon Petrosucre's failure to satisfy its contractual payment obligations during the 30-day period subsequent to our notice. On June 4, 2009, after Petrosucre's failure to satisfy its contractual payment obligations, failure to reach a mutually acceptable agreement with us and denial of our request to demobilize ENSCO 69 from Venezuela, Petrosucre advised that it would not return the rig and would continue to operate it without our consent. Petrosucre further advised that it would release ENSCO 69 after a six-month period, subject to a mutually agreed accord addressing the resolution of all remaining obligations under the ENSCO 69 drilling contract. On June 6, 2009, we terminated our contract with Petrosucre and removed all remaining Ensco employees from the rig. On July 17, 2009, we received an $11.5 million payment from Petrosucre, which represented less than 25% of the $47.9 million contractually due to us as of June 30, 2009.
Due to Petrosucre's longstanding failure to satisfy its contractual obligations and meet payment commitments, and in consideration of the Venezuelan government's recent nationalization of assets owned by international oil and gas companies and oilfield service companies, we believe it is remote that ENSCO 69 will be returned to us by Petrosucre and operated again by Ensco. Therefore, we recorded the disposal of ENSCO 69 during the quarter ended June 30, 2009, and both the ENSCO 69 results of operations and loss on disposal were reclassified as discontinued operations in our condensed consolidated statements of income. We have filed an insurance claim under our package policy, which includes coverage for certain political risks, and are evaluating legal remedies against Petrosucre for contractual and other ENSCO 69 related damages.
ENSCO 69 had a net book value of $17.3 million and inventory and other assets totaling $800,000. In connection with the disposal of ENSCO 69, we recognized a pre-tax loss of $18.1 million, which was classified as loss on disposal of discontinued operations, net, in our condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009.
After considering the $11.5 million payment received on July 17, 2009, we recognized a $5.4 million bad debt provision during the quarter ended June 30, 2009 to fully reserve our remaining net receivable from Petrosucre. We had previously recognized bad debt provisions of $2.6 million and $14.3 million during the quarters ended March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively. Bad debt provisions recognized during the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 were included in loss on discontinued operations, net, in our condensed consolidated statements of income. We did not recognize revenue associated with ENSCO 69 drilling operations subsequent to January 2009 when Petrosucre initially assumed control of our rig. We deferred $14.1 million of revenue earned during the period between January 2009 and our termination of the ENSCO 69 drilling contract in June 2009.
The ENSCO 69 drilling contract is governed by Venezuelan law and there can be no assurances relative to the recovery of outstanding contract entitlements. As of June 30, 2009, ENSCO 69 had an insured value of $65.0 million under a package policy, including coverage for certain political risks, subject to a $10.0 million deductible. We are in the early stages of the insurance claim process and, therefore, were unable to conclude that collection of insurance proceeds associated with the loss of ENSCO 69 was probable as of June 30, 2009. Accordingly, no ENSCO 69 related insurance recoveries were recognized in our condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009.
ENSCO 74
In September 2008, ENSCO 74 was lost as a result of Hurricane Ike. Thereafter, we conducted extensive aerial and sonar reconnaissance but failed to locate the rig hull. The rig was a total loss, as defined under the terms of our insurance policies. In March 2009, the sunken hull of ENSCO 74 was located on the seabed approximately 95 miles from the original drilling location when it was reportedly struck by an oil tanker. The operating results of ENSCO 74 were reclassified as discontinued operations in our condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2008. See "Note 9 - Contingencies" for additional information on the loss of ENSCO 74.
The following table summarizes our (loss) income from discontinued operations for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 (in millions):
|
Three Months Ended |
Six Months Ended |
|||||||
|
June 30, |
June 30, |
|||||||
|
2009 |
2008 |
2009 |
2008 |
|||||
|
|||||||||
Revenues |
|
$ -- |
|
$27.7 |
|
$ 4.8 |
|
$48.1 |
|
Operating expenses |
|
9.3 |
|
11.9 |
|
19.6 |
|
24.1 |
|
|
|||||||||
Operating (loss) income before income taxes |
|
(9.3 |
) |
15.8 |
|
(14.8 |
) |
24.0 |
|
Income tax expense |
|
3.8 |
|
6.0 |
|
2.0 |
|
9.3 |
|
Loss on disposal of discontinued operations, net |
|
(11.8 |
) |
-- |
|
(11.8 |
) |
-- |
|
|
|||||||||
(Loss) income from discontinued operations |
|
$(24.9 |
) |
$ 9.8 |
|
$(28.6 |
) |
$14.7 |
|
|
Debt and interest expense are not allocated to our discontinued operations.
|
FCPA Internal Investigation
Following disclosures by other offshore service companies announcing internal investigations involving the legality of amounts paid to and by customs brokers in connection with temporary importation of rigs and vessels into Nigeria, the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors and management commenced an internal investigation in July 2007. The investigation initially focused on our payments to customs brokers relating to the temporary importation of ENSCO 100, our only rig that recently operated offshore Nigeria.
As is customary for companies operating offshore Nigeria, we had engaged independent customs brokers to process customs clearance of routine shipments of equipment, materials and supplies and to process the ENSCO 100 temporary importation permits, extensions and renewals. One or more of the customs brokers that our subsidiary in Nigeria used to obtain the ENSCO 100 temporary import permits, extensions and renewals also provided this service to other offshore service companies that have undertaken Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") compliance internal investigations.
The principal purpose of our investigation was to determine whether any of the payments made to or by our customs brokers were inappropriate under the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA or whether any violations of the recordkeeping or internal accounting control provisions of the FCPA occurred. Our Audit Committee engaged a Washington, D.C. law firm with significant experience in investigating and advising upon FCPA matters to assist in the internal investigation.
Following notification to the Audit Committee and to KPMG LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, in consultation with the Audit Committee's outside legal counsel, we voluntarily notified the United States Department of Justice and SEC that we had commenced an internal investigation. We expressed our intention to cooperate with both agencies, comply with their directives and fully disclose the results of the investigation. The internal investigation process has involved extensive reviews of documents and records, as well as production to the authorities, and interviews of relevant personnel. In addition to the temporary importation of ENSCO 100, the investigation has examined our customs clearance of routine shipments and immigration activities in Nigeria.
Our internal investigation has essentially been concluded. A meeting to review the results of the investigation with the authorities was held on February 24, 2009. We expect to discuss a possible negotiated disposition with the authorities during the second half of 2009. It currently is anticipated that the matter will be concluded within that period.
Although we believe the U.S. authorities will take into account our voluntary disclosure, our cooperation with the agencies and the remediation and compliance enhancement activities that are underway, we are unable to predict the ultimate disposition of this matter, whether we will be charged with violation of the anti-bribery, recordkeeping or internal accounting control provisions of the FCPA or whether the scope of the investigation will be extended to other issues in Nigeria or to other countries. We also are unable to predict what potential corrective measures, fines, sanctions or other remedies, if any, the agencies may seek against us or any of our employees.
In November 2008, our Board of Directors approved enhanced FCPA compliance recommendations issued by the Audit Committee's outside counsel, and the Company embarked upon an enhanced compliance initiative that included appointment of a Chief Compliance Officer and a Director - Corporate Compliance. We have engaged consultants to assist us in implementing the compliance recommendations approved by our Board of Directors, which will include an enhanced compliance policy, increased training and testing, prescribed contractual provisions for our service providers that interface with foreign government officials, due diligence for the selection of such service providers and an increased Company-wide awareness initiative that includes periodic issuance of FCPA Alerts.
Since ENSCO 100 completed its contract commitment and departed Nigeria in August 2007, this matter is not expected to have a material effect on or disrupt our current operations. As noted above, we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the extent to which we may be exposed to any resulting potential liability, sanctions or significant additional expense.
ENSCO 74 Loss
In September 2008, ENSCO 74 was lost as a result of Hurricane Ike and was presumed to have sunk in the Gulf of Mexico, however, portions of its legs remained underwater adjacent to the customer's platform. Thereafter, we conducted extensive aerial and sonar reconnaissance but failed to locate the rig hull. The rig was a total loss, as defined under the terms of our insurance policies.
In March 2009, the sunken rig hull of ENSCO 74 was located on the seabed approximately 95 miles from the original drilling location when it was reportedly struck by an oil tanker. Following discovery of the sunken rig hull, we removed the hydrocarbons remaining onboard and began planning for removal of the wreckage. As an interim measure, the wreckage has been appropriately marked, and the U.S. Coast Guard has issued a Notice to Mariners.
Physical damage to our rigs caused by a hurricane, the associated "sue and labor" costs to mitigate the insured loss and removal, salvage and recovery costs are all covered by our property insurance policies subject to a $50.0 million per occurrence retention (deductible). The insured value of ENSCO 74 was $100.0 million, and we have received the net $50.0 million due for loss of the rig.
Coverage for ENSCO 74 sue and labor costs and wreckage and debris removal costs under our property insurance policies is limited to $25.0 million and $50.0 million, respectively. Supplemental wreckage and debris removal coverage is provided under our liability insurance policies, subject to an annual aggregate limit of $500.0 million. We also have a customer contractual indemnification that provides for reimbursement of any ENSCO 74 wreckage and debris removal costs that are not recovered under our insurance policies.
We believe it is probable that we will be required to remove the leg sections of ENSCO 74 remaining adjacent to the customer's platform because they may interfere with the customer's future operations. We also believe it is probable that we will be required to remove the ENSCO 74 rig hull and related debris from the seabed due to the navigational risk it imposes. We estimate the leg removal costs could range from $16.0 million to $30.0 million, and the hull and related debris removal costs could range from $30.0 million to $55.0 million. A $16.0 million liability, representing the low end of the range of estimated leg removal costs, and a corresponding receivable for recovery of those costs, was recorded as of June 30, 2009. A $30.0 million liability, representing the low end of the range of estimated hull and related debris removal costs, and a corresponding receivable for recovery of those costs, was recorded as of June 30, 2009. The aggregate $46.0 million liability and receivable for the leg and hull and related debris removal costs were included in accrued liabilities and other and other assets, net, on our June 30, 2009 condensed consolidated balance sheet.
On March 17, 2009, we received notice from counsel representing certain underwriters in a subrogation claim alleging that ENSCO 74 caused a pipeline to rupture during Hurricane Ike. The letter requests that we retain all documents/records concerning the ENSCO 74 loss and permit the underwriters' representatives to attend the salvage operations and participate in a joint survey of the rig. The underwriters' counsel has advised that the subrogated claim is in the amount of $22.0 million to $25.0 million and indicated that the letter was submitted due to the proximity (approximately 2 miles) of the pipeline to the sunken ENSCO 74 hull and the assumed path of the rig. An investigation of the matter is in process. Based on information currently available, we have not concluded that it is probable that a liability exists with respect to this matter.
On March 18, 2009, the owner of the oil tanker that struck the hull of ENSCO 74 commenced civil litigation against us seeking monetary damages in the aggregate amount of $10.0 million for losses incurred. Based on information currently available, primarily the adequacy of available defenses, we have not concluded that it is probable a liability exists with respect to the claim of the tanker owner.
On June 9, 2009, we received notice from legal counsel representing another pipeline owner which reportedly sustained damages to a subsea pipeline. The letter asserts these unquantified damages may have been caused by ENSCO 74 during Hurricane Ike. We presently are unable to determine whether the pipeline damages were caused by ENSCO 74 or the extent of the cost and losses associated with the damage. Based on information currently available, we have not concluded that it is probable that a liability exists with respect to this matter.
We have liability insurance policies that provide coverage for third-party claims such as the tanker and pipeline claims, subject to a $10.0 million per occurrence self-insured retention (in the event of multiple occurrences the self-insured retention is $15.0 million for two occurrences and $1.0 million for each occurrence thereafter) and an annual aggregate limit of $500.0 million. Although we do not expect the final disposition of the claims associated with the ENSCO 74 loss to have a material adverse effect upon our financial position, operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome.
ENSCO 29 Wreck Removal
A portion of the ENSCO 29 platform drilling rig was lost over the side of a customer's platform as a result of Hurricane Katrina during 2005. Although beneficial ownership of ENSCO 29 was transferred to our insurance underwriters when the rig was determined to be a total loss, management believes we may be legally required to remove ENSCO 29 wreckage and debris from the seabed and currently estimates that the removal cost could range from $5.0 million to $15.0 million. Our property insurance policies include coverage for ENSCO 29 wreckage and debris removal costs up to $3.8 million. We also have liability insurance policies that provide specified coverage for wreckage and debris removal costs in excess of the $3.8 million coverage provided under our property insurance policies.
Our liability insurance underwriters have issued letters reserving rights and effectively denying coverage by questioning the applicability of coverage for the potential ENSCO 29 wreckage and debris removal costs. In August 2007, we commenced litigation against certain underwriters alleging breach of contract, wrongful denial, bad faith and other claims which seek a declaration that removal of wreckage and debris is covered under our liability insurance, monetary damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies. The litigation is in an early stage and is currently pending a decision from the United States Court of Appeals.
While we anticipate that any ENSCO 29 wreckage and debris removal costs incurred will be largely or fully covered by insurance, a $1.2 million provision, representing the portion of the $5.0 million low end of the range of estimated removal cost we believe is subject to liability insurance coverage, was recognized during 2006.
Asbestos Litigation
In August 2004, we and certain current and former subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with numerous other third-party companies as co-defendants, in three multi-party lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones County (Second Judicial District) and Jasper County (First Judicial District), Mississippi. The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities during the period 1965 through 1986.
In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims. As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims, we have been named as a defendant by 65 individual plaintiffs. Of these claims, 62 claims or lawsuits are pending in Mississippi state courts and three are pending in the U.S. District Court as a result of their removal from state court.
The Mississippi state court cases are under an informal stay of discovery issued by a Special Master presiding over these matters while discovery is conducted for a designated group of plaintiffs, several of which involve us. To date, written discovery and plaintiff depositions have taken place in seven cases pending against us. No further activity will occur in these cases until they are selected for trial. Currently, none of the cases pending against us in Mississippi have been set for trial. Plaintiffs and defendants have until August 15, 2009 to select plaintiffs to fill five trial settings during 2010.
The three cases pending in federal court were consolidated with 441 other lawsuits filed by a Houston law firm. These cases were referred to a Magistrate Judge, who ordered parties to conduct general discovery in these matters. Discovery specific to each plaintiff will take place at a later designated time, if deemed necessary by the parties and the court.
We intend to vigorously defend against these claims and have filed responsive pleadings preserving all defenses and challenges to jurisdiction and venue. However, discovery is still ongoing and, therefore, available information regarding the nature of all pending claims is limited. At present, we cannot reasonably determine how many of the claimants may have valid claims under the Jones Act or estimate a range of potential liability exposure, if any.
In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, we have eight other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against us in litigation in various other jurisdictions. Although we do not expect the final disposition of the Mississippi and other asbestos lawsuits to have a material adverse effect upon our financial position, operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits.
Working Time Directive
Legislation known as the U.K. Working Time Directive ("WTD") was introduced in August 2003 and may be applicable to our employees and employees of other drilling contractors that work offshore in United Kingdom ("U.K.") territorial waters or in the U.K. sector of the North Sea. Certain trade unions representing offshore employees have claimed that drilling contractors are not in compliance with the WTD in respect of paid time off (vacation time) for employees working offshore on a rotational basis (generally equal time working and off).
A Labor Tribunal in Aberdeen, Scotland, rendered decisions in claims involving other offshore drilling contractors and offshore service companies on February 21, 2008. The Tribunal decisions effectively held that employers of offshore workers in the U.K. sector employed on an equal time on/time off rotation are obligated to accord such rotating personnel two-weeks annual paid time off from their scheduled offshore work assignment period. Both sides of the matter, employee and employer groups, appealed the Tribunal decision. The appeals were heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") in December 2008.
In an opinion rendered on March 9, 2009, the EAT determined that the time off work enjoyed by U.K. offshore oil and gas workers, typically 26 weeks per year, meets the amount of annual leave employers must provide to employees under the WTD. The employer group was successful in all arguments on appeal, as the EAT determined that the statutory entitlement to annual leave under the WTD can be discharged through normal field break arrangements for offshore workers. As a consequence of the EAT decision, an equal on/off time offshore rotation has been deemed to be fully compliant with the WTD.
The employee group (led by a trade union) was granted leave to appeal to the highest civil court in Scotland (the Court of Session). The trade unions initially submitted an application for a direct reference to the European Court of Justice, which recently was withdrawn. It is expected that a Court of Session ruling on the appeal will not be made for several years.
We also received inquiries from and responded to the Danish and Dutch authorities regarding applicability of the WTD as adopted by Denmark and The Netherlands to employees on our rigs operating in the Danish and Dutch sectors of the North Sea.
Based on information currently available, we do not expect the ultimate resolution of these matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, operating results or cash flows.
Other Matters
In connection with an audit of employee payroll-related returns of an international subsidiary, the local taxing authority issued a letter to us during the second quarter of 2009 communicating its position related to the applicability of certain tax exemptions provided by various tax treaties to non-resident employees of the subsidiary. We believe that the local taxing authority's position is inconsistent with established and current tax law in the jurisdiction. We estimate our exposure associated with this matter to be approximately $5.5 million, but sufficient evidence exists to enable us to conclude that our defenses are adequate and a liability is not probable.
In addition to the foregoing, we are named defendants in certain other lawsuits, claims or proceedings incidental to our business and are involved from time to time as parties to governmental investigations or proceedings, including matters related to taxation, arising in the ordinary course of business. Although the outcome of such lawsuits or other proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and the amount of any liability that could arise with respect to such lawsuits or other proceedings cannot be predicted accurately, management does not expect these matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, operating results or cash flows.
|
Our business consists of four operating segments: (1) Deepwater, (2) Asia Pacific, (3) Europe/Africa and (4) North and South America. Each of our four operating segments provides one service, contract drilling. Segment information for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 is presented below. General and administrative expense and depreciation expense incurred by our corporate office are not allocated to our operating segments for purposes of measuring segment operating income and were included in "Reconciling Items." Assets not allocated to our operating segments consisted primarily of cash and cash equivalents and goodwill and were also included in "Reconciling Items."
Three Months Ended
June 30, 2009
(in millions)
|
|
|
|
North |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
and |
Operating |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
Asia |
Europe/ |
South |
Segments |
Reconciling |
Consolidated |
||||||||||||||||
|
Deepwater |
Pacific |
Africa |
America |
Total |
Items |
Total |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Revenues |
|
|
$ 67.7 |
|
|
$ 161.5 |
|
|
$176.0 |
|
|
$106.4 |
|
|
$ 511.6 |
|
|
$ -- |
|
|
$ 511.6 |
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
23.7 |
|
|
61.0 |
|
|
52.6 |
|
|
40.5 |
|
|
177.8 |
|
|
-- |
|
|
177.8 |
|
|
Depreciation |
|
|
3.7 |
|
|
22.2 |
|
|
11.0 |
|
|
12.1 |
|
|
49.0 |
|
|
.3 |
|
|
49.3 |
|
|
General and administrative |
|
|
-- |
|
|
-- |
|
|
-- |
|
|
-- |
|
|
-- |
|
|
16.0 |
|
|
16.0 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Operating income (loss) |
|
|
$ 40.3 |
|
|
$ 78.3 |
|
|
$112.4 |
|
|
$ 53.8 |
|
|
$ 284.8 |
|
|
$ (16.3) |
|
|
$ 268.5 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Total assets |
|
|
$2,172.4 |
|
|
$1,300.7 |
|
|
$813.2 |
|
|
$823.4 |
|
|
$5,109.7 |
|
|
$1,239.3 |
|
|
$6,349.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
and |
Operating |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
Asia |
Europe/ |
South |
Segments |
Reconciling |
Consolidated |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Deepwater |
Pacific |
Africa |
America |
Total |
Items |
Total |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Revenues |
|
|
$ 32.6 |
|
|
$ 263.5 |
|
|
$201.8 |
|
|
$111.5 |
|
|
$ 609.4 |
|
|
$ -- |
|
|
$ 609.4 |
|
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
9.7 |
|
|
89.3 |
|
|
64.2 |
|
|
39.8 |
|
|
203.0 |
|
|
-- |
|
|
203.0 |
|
|
|
Depreciation |
|
|
2.3 |
|
|
21.2 |
|
|
10.8 |
|
|
11.9 |
|
|
46.2 |
|
|
.5 |
|
|
46.7 |
|
|
|
General and administrative |
|
|
-- |
|
|
-- |
|
|
-- |
|
|
-- |
|
|
-- |
|
|
13.8 |
|
|
13.8 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Operating income (loss) |
|
|
$ 20.6 |
|
|
$ 153.0 |
|
|
$126.8 |
|
|
$ 59.8 |
|
|
$ 360.2 |
|
|
$ (14.3) |
|
|
$ 345.9 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total assets |
|
|
$1,274.0 |
|
|
$1,356.1 |
|
|
$845.5 |
|
|
$823.2 |
|
|
$4,298.8 |
|
|
$ 906.1 |
|
|
$5,204.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
North |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
and |
Operating |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
Asia |
Europe/ |
South |
Segments |
Reconciling |
Consolidated |
||||||||||||||||
|
Deepwater |
Pacific |
Africa |
America |
Total |
Items |
Total |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Revenues |
|
|
$ 67.7 |
|
|
$ 382.4 |
|
|
$372.4 |
|
|
$198.4 |
|
|
$1,020.9 |
|
|
$ -- |
|
|
$1,020.9 |
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
28.5 |
|
|
127.3 |
|
|
106.1 |
|
|
79.6 |
|
|
341.5 |
|
|
-- |
|
|
341.5 |
|
|
Depreciation |
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
43.9 |
|
|
21.9 |
|
|
24.1 |
|
|
95.9 |
|
|
.6 |
|
|
96.5 |
|
|
General and administrative |
|
|
-- |
|
|
-- |
|
|
-- |
|
|
-- |
|
|
-- |
|
|
28.0 |
|
|
28.0 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Operating income (loss) |
|
|
$ 33.2 |
|
|
$ 211.2 |
|
|
$244.4 |
|
|
$ 94.7 |
|
|
$ 583.5 |
|
|
$ (28.6) |
|
|
$ 554.9 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Total assets |
|
|
$2,172.4 |
|
|
$1,300.7 |
|
|
$813.2 |
|
|
$823.4 |
|
|
$5,109.7 |
|
|
$1,239.3 |
|
|
$6,349.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
and |
Operating |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
Asia |
Europe/ |
South |
Segments |
Reconciling |
Consolidated |
||||||||||||||||
|
Deepwater |
Pacific |
Africa |
America |
Total |
Items |
Total |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Revenues |
|
|
$ 57.2 |
|
|
$ 518.7 |
|
|
$393.6 |
|
|
$199.8 |
|
|
$1,169.3 |
|
|
$ -- |
|
|
$1,169.3 |
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
18.2 |
|
|
164.1 |
|
|
122.1 |
|
|
77.2 |
|
|
381.6 |
|
|
-- |
|
|
381.6 |
|
|
Depreciation |
|
|
4.5 |
|
|
42.3 |
|
|
21.3 |
|
|
23.4 |
|
|
91.5 |
|
|
.9 |
|
|
92.4 |
|
|
General and administrative |
|
|
-- |
|
|
-- |
|
|
-- |
|
|
-- |
|
|
-- |
|
|
26.5 |
|
|
26.5 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Operating income (loss) |
|
|
$ 34.5 |
|
|
$ 312.3 |
|
|
$250.2 |
|
|
$ 99.2 |
|
|
$ 696.2 |
|
|
$ (27.4) |
|
|
$ 668.8 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Total assets |
|
|
$1,274.0 |
|
|
$1,356.1 |
|
|
$845.5 |
|
|
$823.2 |
|
|
$4,298.8 |
|
|
$ 906.1 |
|
|
$5,204.9 |
|
|
|
During the second quarter of 2009, we adopted SFAS No. 165, "Subsequent Events" (as amended) which establishes general standards regarding the accounting for and disclosure of events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued or are available to be issued. Adoption of this standard did not result in significant changes in the subsequent events that we are required to recognize or disclosure in our financial statements.
We evaluated subsequent events through July 23, 2009, the date these condensed consolidated financial statements were filed with the SEC. On July 17, 2009, we received an $11.5 million payment from Petrosucre, a subsidiary of PDVSA. Petrosucre took over complete control of ENSCO 69 in January 2009, and we terminated our drilling contract with Petrosucre in June 2009 after it failed to satisfy contractual obligations and meet payment commitments. See "Note 8 - Discontinued Operations" for additional information on ENSCO 69.